cortex_add_research

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether notes are appended or overwritten, required permissions, or side effects. The word 'save' implies writing but lacks necessary detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at four words, front-loading the action. While efficient, it could include minimal extra context (e.g., 'using required notes param') without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the operation's effect, prerequisites, or what the return value indicates, leaving critical gaps for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the aliases (library vs library_name, url vs source_url) or the usage of optional parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Save library research notes' clearly indicates the action (save) and the resource (library research notes), distinguishing it from siblings like cortex_add_decision or cortex_add_snippet by the specific object type. However, it could be more explicit about what 'research notes' entails.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cortex_add_snippet or cortex_log_issue. The agent must infer from the name alone, which is insufficient for correct selection among many add-tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.